Appendix 1: Examiner’s ‘Report on Gotham Neighbourhood Plan …€¦ · this report in order...
Transcript of Appendix 1: Examiner’s ‘Report on Gotham Neighbourhood Plan …€¦ · this report in order...
Appendix 1: Examiner’s ‘Report on Gotham
Neighbourhood Plan 2017 – 2028’
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
1
Report on Gotham Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - 2028
An Examination undertaken for Rushcliffe Borough Council with the support of Gotham Parish Council on the submission draft of the Plan
dated June 2018.
Independent Examiner: Bob Yuille MSc DipTP MRTPI
Date of Report: 31 July 2019
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
2
Contents
Page
Main Findings - Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction and Background 3
Gotham Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - 2028 3 The Independent Examiner 3
The Scope of the Examination 4 The Basic Conditions 5
2. Approach to the Examination 5 Planning Policy Context 5
Submitted Documents 6 Site Visit 7 Conduct of the Examination 7
Modifications 7
3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights 7
Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area 7 Plan Period 7 Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation 7
Development and Use of Land 9
Excluded Development 9
Human Rights 9
4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions 9
EU Obligations 9 Main Issues 9 General Issues of Compliance 10
- Regard to National Policy and Guidance 10 - General Conformity with Strategic
Development Plan Policies
10
- Contribution to Sustainable Development 11 Specific Issues of Compliance 12
- Policy GS1 Protective and Enhancement Measures for a Green Network
12
- Housing Policies 14 - Employment Policy 15
- Transport Policies 16 - The Village Centre 16 - Finance 17
5. Conclusions 17
Summary 17
The Referendum and its Area 17
Overview 18
Appendix 1: Hearing Agenda 19 Appendix 2: Modifications 21
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
3
Main Findings - Executive Summary
From my examination of the Gotham Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan) and its supporting documentation including the representations made, I have
concluded that subject to the policy modifications set out in this report, the Plan meets the Basic Conditions.
I have also concluded that:
- The Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body – Gotham Parish Council;
- The Plan has been prepared for an area properly designated – the area shown on the map on page 8 of the Plan;
- As proposed to be modified the Plan specifies the period to which it is
to take effect – 2017-2028; and - The policies relate to the development and use of land for a
designated neighbourhood area. I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to Referendum on the
basis that it has met all the relevant legal requirements.
I have considered whether the referendum area should extend beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates and have concluded that it should not.
1. Introduction and Background
Gotham Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - 2028
1.1 The village of Gotham is located in the Green Belt to the south west of
Nottingham. It is set in open countryside which includes both the high ground of the Gotham Hills and the flatlands of the Trent Valley. Public Transport enthusiasts will know that Gotham is the home of the South
Notts Bus Company and Batman enthusiasts should note that the village is pronounced Goat-ham.
1.2 Work on the Plan has been co-ordinated by the Neighbourhood Plan
Advisory Committee, a sub-committee of the Parish Council, assisted by a planning consultant.
The Independent Examiner
1.3 As the Plan has now reached the examination stage, I have been
appointed as the examiner of the Plan by Rushcliffe Borough Council (the
Council), with the agreement of Gotham Parish Council (the Parish
Council).
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
4
1.4 I am a chartered town planner and former government Planning
Inspector, with over 20 years’ experience in conducting planning inquiries,
planning hearings and development plan examinations. I am an
independent examiner, and do not have an interest in any of the land that
may be affected by the Plan.
The Scope of the Examination
1.5 As the independent examiner I am required to produce this report and
recommend either:
(a) that the Plan is submitted to a referendum without changes; or
(b) that modifications are made and that the modified Plan is submitted to
a referendum; or
(c) that the Plan does not proceed to a referendum on the basis that it
does not meet the necessary legal requirements.
1.6 The scope of the examination is set out in Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B
to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)(‘the 1990 Act’).
The examiner must consider:
Whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions;
Whether the Plan complies with provisions under s.38A and s.38B of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (‘the
2004 Act’). These are:
- it has been prepared and submitted for examination by a
qualifying body, for an area that has been properly designated
by the local planning authority;
- it sets out policies in relation to the development and use of
land;
- it specifies the period during which it has effect;
- it does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded
development’;
- it is the only neighbourhood plan for the area and does not
relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area;
- whether the referendum boundary should be extended beyond
the designated area, should the Plan proceed to referendum;
and
Such matters as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Planning
(General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)(‘the 2012 Regulations’).
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
5
1.7 I have considered only matters that fall within Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule
4B to the 1990 Act, with one exception. That is the requirement that the
Plan is compatible with the Human Rights Convention.
The Basic Conditions
1.8 The ‘Basic Conditions’ are set out in Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the
1990 Act. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the Plan must:
- Have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance
issued by the Secretary of State;
- Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;
- Be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the
development plan for the area;
- Be compatible with and not breach European Union (EU) obligations;
and
- Meet prescribed conditions and comply with prescribed matters.
1.9 Regulation 32 of the 2012 Regulations prescribes a further Basic Condition
for a neighbourhood plan. This requires that the making of the
neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of
Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 20171.
2. Approach to the Examination
Planning Policy Context
2.1 The Development Plan for the area covered by the Plan, not including
documents relating to waste and minerals, is the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part
1: Core Strategy (the Local Plan) adopted in December 2014. The
Borough Council is in the process of preparing the Local Plan Part 2: Land
and Planning Policies (the emerging Local Plan). The emerging Local Plan
has reached an advanced stage. The Examination has been held and
consultations on the Proposed Modifications ended on 5 July 2019. While
there is no requirement for the Plan to be in general conformity with any
strategic policies in the emerging Local Plan, there is an expectation that
1 This revised Basic Condition came into force on 28 December 2018 through the
Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments) (England and
Wales) Regulations 2018.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
6
the Borough Council and the Parish Council will work together to produce
complementary plans2.
2.2 National planning policy for England is set out principally in the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG) offers guidance on how this policy should be
implemented. A revised NPPF was published in July 2018, replacing the
previous 2012 NPPF, and a further revised NPPF was published in
February 2019. The transitional arrangements for local plans and
neighbourhood plans are set out in paragraph 214 of the 2018 NPPF (and
subsequent 2019 version), which provides ‘The policies in the previous
Framework will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those
plans are submitted on or before 24 January 2019’. A footnote clarifies
that for neighbourhood plans, ‘submission’ in this context means where a
qualifying body submits a plan to the local planning authority under
Regulation 15 of the 2012 Regulations. The Plan was submitted to the
Council prior to the January 24th 2019 effective date. Thus, it is the
policies in the previous NPPF that are applied to this examination and all
references in this report are to the March 2012 NPPF and its
accompanying PPG.
Submitted Documents
2.3 I have considered all policy, guidance and other reference documents which I consider relevant to the examination, including the following:
the Submission Draft of the Gotham Neighbourhood Plan dated
June 2018; The map on page 8 of the Plan which identifies the area to which it
relates; the Gotham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement dated
June 2018;
the Gotham Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions Statement dated June 2018;
all the representations that have been made in accordance with the Regulation 16 consultation;
Gotham Neighbourhood Plan SEA and HRA Screening Report, dated
October 2018; and The Parish Council’s and the Borough Council’s responses to my
letters of 28 February 2019, 18 March 2019 and 21 March 2019. 2.4 I have also taken into account the written and oral evidence presented at
the Hearing held on 13 June 20193.
2 Paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and PPG Reference
ID: 41-009-20160211 (as was). 3 Documents referred to in these paragraphs, including Hearing documents, are available
at:
www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/media/1rushcliffe/media/documents/pdf/planningandbuilding/neig
hbourhoodplans/gotham/
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
7
Site Visit
2.5 I made an unaccompanied site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area on 13
June 2019 to familiarise myself with it, and visit relevant sites and areas
referred in the Plan and in evidence.
Conduct of the Examination
2.6 The majority of the issues raised during the examination were capable of
being dealt with by written representations with the consultation
responses clearly articulating the objections to the Plan, and presenting
arguments for and against the Plan’s suitability to proceed to a
referendum. However, I considered that a Hearing was necessary to
ensure an adequate examination of a number of issues as set out in the
Hearing Agenda in Appendix 1. The Hearing was held on 13 June 2019.
Modifications
2.7 Where necessary, I have recommended modifications to the Plan (PMs) in
this report in order that it meets the Basic Conditions and other legal
requirements. For ease of reference, I have listed these modifications
separately in Appendix 2.
3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights
Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area
3.1 The Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by Gotham
Parish Council, which is a qualifying body for an area that was designated
by Rushcliffe Borough Council by way of a letter dated 6 April 2017.
3.2 It is the only Neighbourhood Plan for the area it covers and does not
relate to land outside that area.
Plan Period
3.3 The Plan specifies at paragraph 2.1 that it covers the period from 2017 to 2028. However, this is not stated in the title of the Plan. In the interests of clarity, it should be - as shown in PM1.
Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation
3.4 Work on the Plan was co-ordinated by the Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee, a sub-committee of the Parish Council, assisted by a planning consultant. Local people were kept informed of progress on the Plan by
various means including a newsletter delivered to every household in the
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
8
village; the village website and Facebook page; and the Parish Council newsletter. Community involvement in the preparation of the Plan was
achieved through an informal consultation event, a public meeting and a meeting with local residents.
3.5 Regulation 14 consultations took place between 24 February and 6 April
2018 and elicited 21 responses which were considered by the Parish
Council and, where it was deemed appropriate, the pre-submission version of the Plan was modified.
3.6 In its modified form the submission version of the Plan was the subject of
Regulation 16 consultations between 16 November 2018 and 4 January
2019. All of the responses have been considered in the preparation of this report.
3.7 The question has arisen as to whether the owners of Local Green Spaces
proposed in the Plan were properly consulted. In one instance, a site
known as GOT5b, the Parish Council accepts that proper consultations were not carried out as the site in question was inadvertently left off the
plans supplied at the Regulation 14 stage. The Parish Council has asked that the proposed Local Green Space designation be deleted from this
site. This is a point I will return to later. 3.8 Other affected landowners also feel that they were not properly consulted
on this matter. The Parish Council’s response to this is that all landowners were consulted by way of leaflets and, where they had an
email address, by email. The emails were flagged to ensure that they had been received. As to the leaflets, there is no way of proving whether they were delivered to every house and equally there is no way of proving that
they were not. However, I note that the leaflets were delivered by Parish councillors who would be motivated to carry out this task with due
diligence. 3.9 I note that a number of landowners affected by the proposed Local Green
Space designation have no recollection of being contacted on this matter - and take their point that it would have been clearer had they been
contacted specifically on this matter rather than simply being consulted on the Plan as a whole. But, on the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect a landowner to pay close attention to an emerging plan that could
affect his or her landholdings. I am satisfied that the Parish Council carried out reasonable endeavours to ensure that these landowners were
properly consulted. 3.10 Bearing in mind these points, I am satisfied that the Plan has been
publicised in a manner that is likely to bring it to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the parish of Gotham; that the
consultation process has met the legal requirements and that it has had due regard to the advice on plan preparation and engagement in the PPG.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
9
Development and Use of Land
3.11 The Plan sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in
accordance with s.38A of the 2004 Act.
Excluded Development
3.12 The Plan does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded
development’.
Human Rights
3.13 The Parish Council is satisfied that the Plan does not breach Human Rights
(within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) and, from my
independent assessment, I see no reason to disagree.
4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions
EU Obligations
4.1 In a report dated October 2018, the Plan has been screened by the Parish
Council to establish whether Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) or
Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) is needed. The conclusion reached
was that neither SEA nor HRA were needed. None of the statutory
consultees dispute this conclusion and I have been given no reason to
disagree.
Main Issues
4.2 Having considered whether the Plan complies with the various legal and
procedural requirements it is now necessary to deal with the question of
whether it complies with the remaining Basic Conditions (see paragraph
1.8 of this report), particularly the regard it pays to national policy and
guidance, whether it is in general conformity with strategic development
plan policies and the contribution it makes to sustainable development.
4.3 I should say at this point that the purpose of the examination is not to
delve into matters that do not fundamentally affect the Plan’s ability to
meet the Basic Conditions. I do not, therefore, deal with representations
which, in effect, seek to improve the Plan but which are not necessary to
meet the Basic Conditions. It should also be noted that it is open to the
Parish Council to make minor modifications to the Plan such as correcting
factual or typographical errors.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
10
4.4 From my reading of the Plan, the consultation responses and other
evidence, I consider that in this examination there are two main issues
relating to the Basic Conditions. These are:
- General issues of compliance of the Plan as a whole; and
- Specific issues of compliance of the Plan’s policies.
General Issues of Compliance
Regard to National Policy and Guidance
4.5 The Plan contains policies which seek to protect and enhance a Green
Network of spaces in and around the village (Policy GS1); to identify
opportunities for new housing, including affordable housing, and to ensure
a high quality of design (Policies H1 to H3); to make provision for
employment development, particularly for local people (Policy E1); to
ensure the provision of traffic calming measures, to limit traffic
congestion, and to support sustainable transport (Policies T1 and T2); to
regenerate the centre of the village (Policy VC1); to reduce the risk of
flooding and sewage overflow (Policies FL1 and FL2); and to ensure that
funds derived from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and section 106
agreements or undertakings go towards the implementation of policies in
the Plan (Policy F1).
4.6 These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework insofar as it
seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment (section 11); to
ensure the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes and require
good design (sections 6 and 7); to build a strong and competitive
economy (section 1); to promote sustainable transport (section 4);
support a prosperous rural economy (section 3) and to meet the challenge
of climate change and flooding (section 10).
4.7 I am satisfied, therefore, that, with the modifications I propose later in
this report, the policies of the Plan have regard to national policies and
advice and meet the Basic Conditions in this respect.
General Conformity with Strategic Development Plan Policies
4.8 The Local Plan takes a similar approach to the Plan insofar as it seeks to
deliver, protect and enhance green infrastructure (Policy 16); it seeks to
make provision for employment and economic development but does not
allocate any employment sites in Gotham (Policy 5); it promotes
sustainable transport (Policy 14); seeks to reduce the risk of flooding
(Policy 2); and seeks to ensure that appropriate developer contributions
are made (Policy 19). Furthermore, I see nothing in the strategic policies
of the Local Plan which is incompatible with the aim expressed in the Plan
of regenerating the centre of Gotham.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
11
4.9 The principal difference between the approach taken in the Local Plan and
that taken in the Plan is on the matter of housing and this is something I
will deal with subsequently. With that in mind and having regard to the
points made above I am satisfied that the Plan, with the modifications I
propose later in this report, is in general conformity with the strategic
policies in the Local Plan.
Contribution to Sustainable Development
4.10 The most clearly defined assessment of what amounts to sustainable
development in Gotham is contained in the Local Plan and in the emerging
Local Plan. For the reasons set out above it is clear that the Plan makes
an appropriate contribution to most aspects of the economic,
environmental and social aspects of sustainability as set out in the Local
Plan and for the most part, the same is true for the emerging Local Plan.
There is, however, one important aspect on which the Local Plan and the
emerging Local Plan diverge and this relates to housing provision for
settlements such as Gotham.
4.11 Local Plan Policy 3 states, in effect, that in villages such as Gotham
housing development will be for local needs only. The emerging Local
Plan seeks to depart from that approach and, in order to meet 5-year
housing land supply requirements, proposes the allocation of a site for
around 70 homes on land East of Gypsum Way/The Orchards Gotham. All
the indications are that the Inspector examining the emerging Local Plan
accepts that approach and there is a reasonable prospect, therefore, that
this site will be allocated.
4.12 It is clear from the supporting text to the Plan that the Parish Council
disagrees with the allocation of this site and indeed Policy H1 of the Plan
recommends the allocation of other sites for housing, while Policy GS1c)
of the Plan proposes that the land East of Gypsum Way/The Orchards be
allocated as a Local Green Space – a designation that would preclude the
site from being developed. However, the Parish Council now accepts that
the Local Green Space designation should be removed from this site.
4.13 As to the housing sites recommended in the Plan, these are no more than
recommendations. They are not proposed allocations because it is not
within the remit of the Plan to make such allocations. Gotham is at
present washed over by Green Belt and under the terms of the 2012
version of the Framework it is not within the power of a neighbourhood
plan to alter Green Belt boundaries. Nothing in the Plan, as proposed to
be amended, will, therefore, preclude or frustrate the development of the
site East of Gypsum Way/The Orchards Gotham.
4.14 With these points in mind, I am satisfied that the Plan makes an
appropriate contribution to sustainable development.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
12
Specific Issues of Compliance
Policy GS1 Protective and Enhancement Measures for a Green Network
4.15 Policy GS1 seeks to identify, protect and enhance a green network of
spaces linked by existing and proposed footpaths in and around the
village. In broad terms, this policy is consistent with national policy
(section 11 of the Framework) and with the Local Plan (Policy 16) which
seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment. In the interests
of clarity, the Parish Council accept that policies GS1a) and GS1b) should
be reworded as shown in PM2 and PM3.
4.16 Policy GS1c) identifies a number of Local Green Spaces. The Parish
Council now accepts that two of these spaces should be deleted. The first
of these is the housing site proposed in the emerging Local Plan on land
East of Gypsum Way/The Orchards. There is an expectation that
neighbourhood plans will align with emerging local plans and clearly this
would not be the case if the one plan proposed a policy restricting
development on land which the other plan was proposing for
development. The proposed designation of this site as Local Green space
should, therefore, be deleted as shown in PM4.
4.17 It has been established earlier in this report (paragraph 3.7) that the
landowners of the proposed Local Green Space at GOT5b were not
properly consulted. In this respect, the Plan fails to have regard to
national advice4 which is that landowners should be contacted at an early
stage about the proposed designation. The proposed designation of this
land as Local Green Space should, therefore, be deleted as shown in PM5.
4.18 As to the other proposed Local Green Spaces, the Framework
acknowledges that local communities should be able identify these but
advises5 that, amongst other things, this designation should only be used
where; firstly, the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the
community it serves; secondly, where the green space is demonstrably
special to a local community and holds particular local significance; and
thirdly, where it is local in character and not an extensive tract of land.
4.19 I will deal at the outset with the first and third of these criteria. It is not
disputed that all of the proposed Local Green Spaces are within
reasonably close proximity to the village and that none of them amounts
to an extensive tract of land.
4.20 This leaves the matter of whether each of the proposed Local Green
Spaces is demonstrably special to the community and holds particular
4 PPG Reference ID: 37-019-20140306. 5 Paragraph 77 of the Framework.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
13
local significance. In most instances, it is not disputed that they are and
having visited the village and its surroundings I see no reason to disagree.
4.21 However, the question of whether the proposed Local Green Space known
as GOT4 is demonstrably special and holds particular significance has
been raised. The Parish Council confirmed at the Hearing that its principal
reasons for designating this site were because it contained an area of
ridge and furrow and because of its biodiversity value.
4.22 It is not disputed that ridge and furrow is a declining feature in the
historic environment but the point was made at the Hearing that the
particular area in question is not the best example in the Borough; that
the best example in the Borough is not as good as the best example in the
County; and that the best example in the County is not as good as the
best examples elsewhere.
4.23 However, as the Parish Council pointed out, it does not have to be among
the best examples of ridge and furrow in the Borough, the County or
elsewhere in order to be of particular local significance and that is the test
to be applied in designating a Local Green Space. I accept this point and
agree that the ridge and furrow on GOT4 is a visible feature that is of
particular local historical significance.
4.24 In doing so I acknowledge that the Local Green Space designation would
not prevent the ridge and furrow being lost as a result of deep ploughing
but this site is managed pasture land where such ploughing would not
typically take place regularly or frequently.
4.25 Turning to the question of biodiversity, GOT4 forms part of the Gotham
Hills, West Leake and Bunny Hills Ridge Line which is identified as what is
termed a Rushcliffe Focal Area (Ecological Networks). This is an area of
woodland and grassland which should be buffered and enhanced and
where there is the potential to create important links between existing
habitats6.
4.26 It was pointed out at the Hearing that this Focal Area is broadly defined, it
does not refer to individual sites such as GOT4 and it does not preclude
development, which is, in effect, what a Local Green Space designation
would do. There are, it was stated, no known protected species on GOT4,
that no detailed survey of the biodiversity of the site has been carried out
and to the extent that it has biodiversity value it is no different to the
adjoining site on land East of Gypsum Way/The Orchards which is
proposed as a housing allocation in the emerging Local Plan.
6 Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2, Fig. E1 and Table E1.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
14
4.27 While I accept that these are valid points, they do not preclude the local
community from coming to the decision that this is a green area of
particular importance to the community7. It would have been impractical
on a limited budget for the Parish Council to commission ecological
surveys and it is not unreasonable to rely on the knowledge of local
people in this respect – particularly where it is acknowledged that GOT4
has some biodiversity value. While that value may be no greater than
that of the proposed housing site on adjoining land, it may be that the
prospect of the development of that site has sharpened the local
community’s appreciation of the biodiversity value of GOT4.
4.28 I also note that consultations to date have revealed no widespread
opposition to this proposed designation among the local community. I
conclude, therefore, that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that this
land is demonstrably special and of local significance to the local
community, and that the designation of GOT4 as Local Green Space meets
the Basic Conditions.
4.29 On a more general point, I note that all of the proposed Local Green
Spaces are in Green Belt and for the most part would remain so if the
Green Belt inset proposed in the emerging Local Plan were to be adopted.
National Guidance makes clear that land in Green Belt can be designated
as Local Green Space where some additional local benefit would be
gained. The Parish Council accepts that protection from development is
the norm in Green Belt but points out that exceptions have been made in
the area particularly when it comes to housing development. A Local
Green Space designation would help to identify areas that are of particular
importance to the local community. Such an approach has regard to
national guidance8 and, given the presence of other potential housing sites
in and around the village, would not undermine the aim of identifying
sufficient land in suitable locations to meet identified development needs9.
The proposed Local Green Space designations apart from the exceptions
noted above, meet the Basic Conditions therefore in this respect.
4.30 In the interests of clarity the Parish Council consider that Policy GS1c)
should be reworded in the manner shown in PM6. I agree.
Housing Policies
4.31 It is important to note that the purpose of Policy H1 is not to allocate
housing sites but to recommend the allocation of certain sites for housing
if in any future review of the Development Plan this is deemed
7 The definition of a Local Green Space as given in PPG Reference ID:37-005-20140306. 8 PPG Reference ID: 37-010-20140306. 9 PPG Reference ID: 37-007-20140306.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
15
necessary10. However, this is not made sufficiently clear in Policy H1 or
the supporting text as currently worded. It should therefore be modified
as proposed in PM7.
4.32 Given that Policy H1 only makes recommendations that will not be binding
on any future plan making authority, and that the recommended sites will
no doubt be the subject of further assessment, I consider that the
Housing Site Assessment11 which led to their selection is a reasonably
clear and robust document. Inevitably such an exercise involves
subjective judgements and different conclusions may have been drawn
from other similar exercises but I see no fundamental flaws in this
particular assessment.
4.33 Policy H2 requires the provision of Design Briefs for these housing sites.
It is not the practice of the Borough Council to require the provision of
Design Briefs on such sites but I see nothing in either national policy or
the strategic policies of the Local Plan that precludes such a requirement.
Policy H2 meets the Basic Conditions in that it seeks to boost the supply
of housing land in accordance with the requirements of the Framework
and the Local Plan12.
4.34 Policy H3 seeks to influence the size and type of affordable housing
provision and to give priority to local people when these houses are
allocated. However, the Parish Council accepted at the Hearing that this
Policy would not bind the Borough Council which is the body responsible
for the allocation of such housing. The Policy is, therefore, merely a
recommendation and should be re-worded to reflect this as shown in
PM8. In its modified form Policy H2 meets the Basic Conditions as it seeks
to ensure the provision of affordable housing in line with the requirements
of the Framework and the Local Plan13.
Employment Policy
4.35 For the reasons set out in paragraph 4.33 above I see no reason to delete
the reference to Design Briefs in Policy E1. As to the remainder of the
policy, this seeks to support B1 uses on a site owned by British Gypsum to
the south of the village. It does so by stating, in effect, that if proposals
come forward for non B1 uses then it must be demonstrated that these
are directly related to the operation of the much larger British Gypsum
site nearby at East Leake and that there are not more sustainable sites at
10 This is because under the terms of the 2012 version of the Framework (paragraph 83)
it is not within the remit of a neighbourhood plan to alter Green Belt boundaries. 11 Background Paper 7 Housing Site Assessments. 12 Paragraph 47 of the Framework and Policy and Policy 3 of the Local Plan. 13 Paragraph 47 of the Framework and Local Plan Policy 8.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
16
that larger site. B1 uses are to be supported because of their potential to
provide employment for local people.
4.36 It is suggested that this policy goes beyond the remit of the Plan because
it seeks to direct development towards East Leake. I do not agree. The
Policy simply seeks to set out criteria to be considered when determining
a planning application. It does not seek to prejudge the outcome of such
an application. It is reasonable for the Parish Council to conclude that B1
uses would provide the greatest support for the local rural economy and in
this respect Policy E1 chimes well with the Framework and Local Plan14. I
note the point that there is little land available in East Leake, in which
case Policy E1 would not preclude other industrial uses on the site in
question. I also note that the Local Plan allows for the expansion of the
site at East Leake15. Policy E1 meets the Basic Conditions.
Transport Policies
4.37 Policy T1 seeks to ensure the safe and convenient flow of traffic in the
village, an aim which accords with the advice on sustainable transport
contained in the Framework and the Local Plan16. However, the policy
goes beyond the remit of the Plan by referring to developments outside
the Plan area. These references should be deleted as shown in PM9. In
its modified form, Policy T1 meets the Basic Conditions.
4.38 Policy T2 supports developments that provide improved sustainable
access. In this respect, it pays due regard to both the Framework and the
Local Plan which seek to achieve the same end17. Policy T2 meets the
Basic Conditions.
The Village Centre
4.39 Policy VC1 seeks to ensure that a high quality of design is achieved in any
schemes for the regeneration of the village centre. This is in accord with
both the Framework and the Local Plan, each of which require good
design18. The wording of the policy lacks clarity, however, in that it refers
to ‘strict design policies’ but does not specify what they are. It would be
clearer simply to require a high quality of design as shown in PM10.
4.40 Policy FL1 refers to the issue of flood risk in the context of deciding where
housing will be allocated. However, as has already been established, the
14 Paragraph 28 of the Framework and Policy 5(6) of the Local Plan. 15 Local Plan Policy 5(5). 16 Section 4 of the Framework and Local Plan Policy 15. 17 Section 4 of the Framework and Policy 14 of the Local Plan. 18 Paragraph 57 of the Framework and Policy 10 of the Local Plan
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
17
Plan does not allocate housing sites. Policy FL1 is, therefore unnecessary
and should be deleted as shown in PM11.
4.41 Policy FL2 seeks to ensure the provision of adequate sewerage facilities.
However, its wording is misleading in that it implies that the Parish
Council determines planning applications, which it does not, and pays no
regard to Severn Trent’s obligation to provide water and sewerage to new
development. The Parish Council accepts that the wording suggested by
the Borough Council, as set out in PM12, is clearer.
Finance
4.42 Policy F1 states that funds derived from the CIL or equivalent should, in
effect, be spent in the Plan area. While this is an understandable aim, I
agree with the Borough Council that such a policy goes beyond the scope
of a neighbourhood plan. To quote from the Borough Council; “There are
specific legal requirements when it comes to the allocation of funding the
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Where a neighbourhood plan is in
place then 25% of the funding can be claimed by parish councils for
infrastructure to support new development, whilst the remaining funding
is required to go towards strategic infrastructure as defined by a
Regulation 123 list which is set by the Borough Council.” It follows,
therefore, that Policy F1 cannot simply direct the Borough Council to
spend all CIL monies in the parish. This Policy should, therefore, be
deleted as shown in PM13.
5. Conclusions
Summary
5.1 The Plan has been duly prepared in compliance with the procedural requirements. My examination has investigated whether the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements for neighbourhood
plans. I have had regard for all the responses made following consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan, the evidence documents
submitted with it and the written and oral evidence presented at the Hearing held on 13 June 2019.
5.2 I have made recommendations to modify a number of policies and text to ensure the Plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements.
I recommend that the Plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum.
The Referendum and its Area
5.3 I have considered whether or not the referendum area should be extended beyond the designated area to which the Plan relates. The Plan as
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
18
modified has no policy or proposals which I consider significant enough to have an impact beyond the designated Neighbourhood Plan boundary,
requiring the referendum to extend to areas beyond the Plan boundary. I recommend that the boundary for the purposes of any future referendum
on the Plan should be the boundary of the designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.
Overview
5.4 It was pointed out to me at the Hearing, the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan involves the Parish Council in expending considerable sums of money and much effort. This is undoubtedly true. In this
instance, however, the Parish Council can take comfort from the fact that they and their professional adviser have produced a clear and focussed
document that will provide a valuable tool in managing development in the area.
R J Yuille
Examiner
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
19
Appendix 1: Hearing Agenda
GOTHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN PUBLIC HEARING – THURSDAY 13TH JUNE 2019
TO BE HELD BETWEEN 10.00 A.M. AND 16.00 P.M. AT THE MOONRAKERS
ROOM, GOTHAM MEMORIAL HALL, NOTTINGHAM ROAD, GOTHAM,
NOTTINGHAM, NG11 0HE.
AGENDA
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. CONDUCT AND PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
3. STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND (SOCG)
Policy GS1a). The Parish Council in its response say that the rewording of
Policy GS1a) proposed by the Borough Council is not acceptable but in the
SOCG it is agreed that it is acceptable. Which is correct?
It is agreed within the SOCG that the Local Green Space designations to
the ‘South’ and ‘East’ are appropriate. Where will I find ‘East’ on map 2B
of the Neighbourhood Plan?
In the SOCG it is agreed that the proposed Local Green Space designation
should be removed from the site known as GOT5a. In its response, the
Parish Council is somewhat more equivocal. What is the agreed position?
4. POLICY GS1c). Local Green Spaces.
Were landowners contacted at an early stage about proposals to designate their land as a Local Green Space?
What additional local benefits would be gained by designating land in
Green Belt as Local Green Space? Would the Local Green Space designation give additional weight to Green
Belt policies? What is the justification for proposing to designate the site known as
GOT04 as Local Green Space?
5. POLICY H1. Housing Sites.
Is the wording of Policy H1 sufficiently clear? Should the recommended housing sites be included in the policy or in an
appendix?
6. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) and HABITATS
REGULATION ASSESSMENT (HRA) SCREENING REPORT. This document concludes that SEA and HRA are not required. One of the
statutory consultees, Historic England, does not agree and advises that
SEA is required. Would the Borough Council and Parish Council please comment on this?
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
20
7. OTHER MATTERS
8. ACCOMPANIED SITE VISIT
Robert Yuille Independent Examiner May 2019
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
21
Appendix 2: Modifications
Proposed
modification
number (PM)
Page no./
other
reference
Modification
PM1 Title Page Gotham Neighbourhood Plan 2017 –
2028.
PM2 Page 16
Policy
GS1a)
Delete the final part of the last sentence of
the existing policy:
Planning applications which will
result in the closure and diversion of
a public right of way will not be
permitted unless it can be
demonstrated that satisfactory
alternative provision can be made
and that they would result in net
gains in terms of amenity and
convenience.
PM3 Page 16
Policy
GS1b)
Delete existing policy. Replace with:
Developments which harm
designated wildlife sites and ancient
woodlands in the Plan area will not
be supported. Other developments
which include provision for, or
contribute to, the establishment and
retention of a network of green
infrastructure within the parish will
be looked on favourably. Proposals
which contribute towards new links
and/or enhancement of the existing
green infrastructure network will be
supported. Proposals should consider
opportunities to retain, enhance and
incorporate features which are
beneficial for wildlife and habitat
creation through their landscape
proposals and design.
PM4 Page 17 Delete the land East of Gypsum Way/The
Orchards from Map 2b of the Plan.
PM5 Page 17 Delete GOT5b from Map 2b of the Plan.
PM6 Page 16 Amend Policy as follows:
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
22
Policy
GS1c)
Within designated local green-spaces
the protective policies set out in
Green Belt policies will be given
additional weight applied and to the
effect that very special exceptional
circumstances would need to be
demonstrated for non Green Belt
inappropriate uses to be allowed. In
the case of any form of housing
development it would need to be
shown that no alternative sites are or
will become available within
Rushcliffe and/or the Greater
Nottingham Housing Market Area and
even where this is the case it will
need to be shown that the harm from
very marginal under provision of land
for housing would be a greater harm
than the development of the green
space concerned.
PM7
Page 26
Policy H1
Amend Policy as follows:
The Neighbourhood Plan will
recommend the allocation of land for
housing made up of parts or the
whole of sites as shown in Map 4. The
sites listed in Appendix One are those
to which priority should be given in
any review of the Part Two Rushcliffe
Local Plan or any review of the
Neighbourhood Plan.
Brownfield
The former Royal British Legion
Building up to 11 dws (Any
development must include provision
to create viable access to GOT1 and
GOT3)
Possible brownfield sites depending
on owners future business plans
NCT Bus Depot (included in the plan)
up to 19 dws
Greenfield
Got 1 Land behind the Royal British
Legion Building up to 20 dws
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
23
Page 6
Page 19
Page 22
Got 3 Land north of Kegworth
Road/Home Farm (east) up to 20 dws
Got 9 Land at Gladstone Av. (extant
planning permission) 3 dws
Got 10 Glebe land at Nottingham
Road (part thereof) up to 12 dws
Got 12 Ashcroft Moor Lane (self-
build)
Deleted sites to be put in Appendix One.
New section of paragraph 2.1 to be added
as follows:
The Plan includes recommended
allocations which are supported by the
local community. These recommended
sites are set out in Appendix One. It
should be noted that, unlike the rest of
the Neighbourhood Plan, Appendix One
does not form part of the development
plan, as defined by Section 38 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004. These sites are identified on Maps 1
and 4 and in Chapter 6. It will be for
either the Parish Council or Borough
Council and the review of either the
Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan to
determine which, if any, of the
recommended sites at Appendix One are
ultimately allocated for development.
New paragraph 6.5 to read as follows:
In accordance with planning legislation,
the Plan recommends housing sites which
may be allocated within future reviews of
the Neighbourhood Plan or Local Plan.
These do not form part of the
development plan as defined by Section
38 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004, but are identified in
this chapter and in Appendix One.
New paragraph 6.14 to read as follows:
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
24
Page 23
Page 23
As set out in paragraph 6.5, this
Neighbourhood Plan only recommends
housing sites which will be allocated
through the future review of either this
Neighbourhood Plan or the Local Plan.
Therefore, until they are allocated they do
not form part of the development plan.
New paragraph 6.16 to read as follows:
In the past, sites tended to be suggested
for allocation through the Strategic
Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA) as entire fields or aggregations
of entire fields. This is sometimes called
planning by field boundaries. These are
carried through into local plans and
eventually developed on the ground. The
boundaries thus formed then make no
real sense in planning or design terms.
The Neighbourhood Plan will take
recommends a different approach. Given
the context for numbers and type of
housing, the Green Space Network and
the structure of the village we see parts of
the following recommended housing sites
in Appendix One having the potential for
housing (numbers refer to the Rushcliffe
Further Options document). A Plan extract
from the Rushcliffe BC document is
included in Background Paper Seven. We
see a real advantage in having a number
of small sites in terms of choice and
steady delivery through the Plan period.
New paragraph 6.18 to read as follows:
To supplement this resource the 'Further
Option' sites have been looked at in detail
to see if they are appropriate for
allocation in the Rushcliffe Local Plan. The
results of the exercise are set out in
Background Paper Seven. There are two
main greenfield sites GOT 01 and GOT 03,
supplemented by known infill sites GOT
09 and GOT12. All sites are vacant,
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
25
available (in the SHLAA) and can be
delivered in the next 5 years. The
following sites should be allocated a
priority for housing allocation for
development in any future review of the
Rushcliffe Location Neighbourhood Plan or
Local Plan.
PM8 Page 26
Policy H3
Amend Policy as follows:
The priorities for affordable housing
to meet the needs of Gotham are the
provision of bungalows and one bed
room flats. In the light of the likely
mismatch between demand and
supply in Gotham, priority for
allocation of affordable housing in
Gotham should be given to Gotham
residents where this is possible, for
instance within exception sites.
PM9 Page 30
Policy T1
Amend Policy as follows:
The priority within the village is the
safety and convenience of residents.
Traffic speed will be restricted to
defined limits by traffic calming at
such sites as the entrance to the
village at Nottingham Road, the
Curzon St/Kegworth Rd junction, the
Square and the entrance to the
village from East Leake.
The amount of traffic passing through
the village and the existing issues
with parking will be a consideration
in assessing development proposals
within Gotham, but also elsewhere
such as Clifton South and East Leake.
and will take into account wider
cumulative impacts.
Traffic Regulation Orders and other
means may be used to deal with
congestion and parking on Leake
Road and Kegworth Road/Hall Drive
at school arrival and departure times.
Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT
Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84
26
PM10 Page 31
Policy VC1
Amend Policy as follows:
Within the whole Village Centre
Regeneration Area shown on Map 6
strict design policies will apply a high
standard of design will be required
including landscaping schemes that
will make a positive contribution to
the village.
PM11 Page 33
Policy FL1
Delete Policy FL1.
PM12 Page 33
Policy FL2
Delete existing Policy FL2 and replace with
Where required, applications for
development shall be accompanied
with documentation demonstrating
that there will be no adverse impact
on the existing sewage capacity of
the village or specify the measures
that will be undertaken to ensure that
its impacts can be adequately
addressed.
PM13 Page 34
Policy F1
Delete Policy F1.